Manchester School Funding Forum

Transcription

1 Manchester School Funding Forum Minutes of a meeting held on 26 th January 2009 Present: Secondary Sector Headteachers Ian Fenn (In the Chair) David Watchorn and Andy Park Secondary Sector Governors: Colin Collinson, Kath Fry and Julie Reid Primary Sector Headteachers, Rosetta Mason and Samantha Offord Primary Sector Governors: Isobel Freeman and Hazel Rock Special Sector Headteacher: Bernice Kostick Non-School Members: Councillor A. Khan, Sheila Seed, Harry Spooner and George Strachan In Attendance: Councillor Sheila Newman Observers: None. Officers in attendance: David Mole, Corporate Services John Edwards, Children s Services Jayne Langley, Children s Services Janice Gotts, Children s Services Roger Fielding, Chief Executive s Joe Flynn, Children s Services Apologies: Pat Adams, Jenny Andrews and Steve Nuttall. FF/09/1 Minutes The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 st December 2008 were submitted and approved as a correct record. FF/09/2 Election of primary sector representative A report of the Secretary was submitted on the outcome of the election of a representative from the primary sector following the resignation of Don Berry. To note the outcome of the election and to welcome Rosetta Mason as a member of the Forum. FF/09/3 School Balances update and proposals for change The Forum was informed of the Schools Forum Sub - Group s discussion in relation to school balances and the claw-back mechanism being proposed by government and was asked to consider a recommendation for a change to the scheme, and changes in the application of the scheme. Officers reminded the Forum that any change would require consultation the outcomes of which would be reported back to the Forum. In discussion members highlighted the need for special consideration in relation to resources held by partners or by a school acting on behalf of a group of schools Page 1 of 8

2 involved in a specific project. It was also suggested that a panel should be established to challenge schools and to hear appeals. Members were also anxious to establish the principle that any monies clawed back under any arrangements ultimately agreed would be spent on Manchester schools and Manchester pupils. The Chair indicated that failure to agree local actions could lead to capping of DSG that would have serious consequences for all schools. 1. To support the Authority s proposals to consult on an extension to the current permitted categories of expenditure for school surpluses, with the categories of permitted committed expenditure comprise the following - planned work (e.g. capital projects), not yet begun or completed planned asset purchase (e.g. library restocking, ICT equipment) funding to offset expected future year budget reductions including the effects of falling rolls contingency for backdated payments expected but not finalised (this may include amounts held to cover the impact of job evaluation, but as with any balance would need to be evidenced.) funding held on behalf of partners (including other schools) for a specific purpose. An explanation for the planned use of this funding and the timescale would be necessary 2. That the proposed changes in the Manchester Scheme for the Financing of Schools are consulted upon as per Schedule 5 of the 2006 Education and Inspections Act with all headteachers and governing bodies of maintained schools, the responses and changes be submitted to Schools Forum for approval. 3. That in addition to the completion of an annual Analysis of Reserves form, school governing bodies be required to provide additional documentary evidence to support their plans for spending committed balances and where requested, provide evidence of how balances have been spent. Documenting the commitment as part of the school s development plan and inclusion within the school s budget planning was felt to be a reliable indicator of a commitment being genuine. 4. To establish a panel as a sub group of the Schools Forum; the terms of reference for the Sub-Group would be: to review any appeals against potential clawback of revenue balances to consider future proposals for change (subject to full Forum agreement) 5. That the Authority continues to monitor and challenge the use of excess balances by schools. That any balances outside the permitted expenditure categories will as under the present scheme be subject to clawback procedures. Page 2 of 8

3 6. Any subsequent clawback by the Authority be spent on children currently in school, following consultation with Schools Forum. FF/09/4 Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EMAG) The Forum considered a report of the Director of Children s Services detailing two proposals for change to EMAG funding that had previously been considered by the Schools Forum Funding Sub-Group. Officers outlined the reasons why the previous formula was no longer viable in terms of capacity to capture data. Two options were proposed: retained the existing model excluding the two elements where it was no longer possible to capture data, or moving to a new model that targeted resources at the most needy. Members accepted the rationale for moving to a new model but, in the absence of a working financial model being demonstrated, assurances were sought about the impacts on individual schools and the need for a transitional threshold of maximum loss for any school under the new arrangements. The Director of Children s Services undertook to report to the next meeting on the detailed financial impacts of the chosen option on all schools. Concerns were also expressed about the potential impact of the three new academies which received EMAG direct from government and the Director of Children s Services undertook to cover this issue in the report to the March meeting on the overall impact of academies and how potential changes in the Standards Fund could impact on the Council s budget share. To support Option 1, to include Special Schools and with a transitional guarantee that no individual school will suffer a loss greater than 10,000. (Voting For 4, Against 1, Abstentions 5) FF/09/5 Capital Funding governance issues The Forum considered a report of the Director of Children s Services informing members of the Authority s plans for oversight of the development of the Primary Capital Investment Strategy. The Deputy Director of Children s Services emphasised the importance of the processes involved in the capital financing decision making process being fully transparent and accountable and he invited views on the establishment of a project board that would make decisions, publish the reasons behind them, and which would involve an appeals mechanism against decisions taken. Welcoming the commitment to transparency and openness in the proposals, members emphasised the importance that schools could easily access details of decisions by the Project Board. Page 3 of 8

4 To note the information presented regarding the establishment of a Primary Capital Investment Board; to note membership and terms of reference for the Board. FF/09/6 DSG Outturn Forecast The Forum noted a report of the Director of Children s Services providing members with information on the projected outturn for the centrally retained school budget based on the position as at the end of November This demonstrated forecast expenditure of 278,713,169 against the total budget of 281,132,104, a projected surplus of 2,418,935 The Authority had previously notified to the Forum its intentions to carry forwarda 1.2 million central DSG under-spend into 2009/10 in the same way that 700k of under-spend was applied in 2008/9 as a one off increase to ISB and 1.9 million to fund transitional costs arising out of the review of Education Services. The Forum would be consulted about the one-off deployment of the forecast carry forward of DSG when more information was available on the funding and budget position for 2009/10. With the funding carry forward available in 2009/10, it would be prudent to defer some of the underspend from 2008/09 to the financial year 2010/11 which would enable further consideration for its deployment in support of pupils. Officers responded to questions from members about specific variations in expenditure. The Forum also noted the areas of known budget pressures in 2009/10 - Pupil referral units increased demand for places in pupil referral units requiring an additional budget requirement estimated at 235k in 2008/09 which is envisaged to increase further in 2009/10 as the full impact of day 6 takes place. Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant (LACSEG) - The Grant is paid to academies opening since 2008, The amount paid will depend on the number of pupils in the three academies opening in September but estimated as 170k (part year effect). Special Educational Needs - the central SEN budget for placement in non-maintained settings or other local authorities is demand led and difficult to predict.. It is estimated that further funding of 300k may be needed based on current levels. Academies SEN - the current budget is over-spending and this is likely to continue in 2009/10. If similar growth occurs next year an additional 50k would be required. Haveley Hey - full year cost of the prudential borrowing to support the new build project is anticipated to be 360k will require an additional budget requirement of 180k in 2009/10. Page 4 of 8

5 Admissions - centralisation of admissions has created additional budget pressure of around 75k for 2009/10. The development of a fully integrated service that would include early years 0 to 5, 16 to 19 (25 for SEN children) admissions and the administration of Children Missing Education, Exclusions and Special Educational Needs will involve further additional resources. Hospital School - The new children s hospital will open in the Summer of 2009/10. Additional costs of 200k for providing an enlarged service have been identified and the ISB will have to be increased accordingly. Some of this funding is likely to come from the recoupment of tuition costs from other local authorities, whilst some will come from the funding attached to the increased pupil numbers on SLASC. Areas of budget savings included Continuing Deficit Repayment - This budget repays the deficit relating to central education overspends in prior years on areas now funded by DSG. The final payment of 700k will be made in 2009/10 releasing around 1,300k. Schools Specific Contingency - potential to reduce the budget for staff pay protection in line with the forecast underspend in 2009/10, Pay Protection - Staff numbers eligible for pay protection have reduced over time the forecast underspend in 2008/09 is around 90k. Development Fund Repayments The budget of 96k will not be required in 2009/10. School Meals - ongoing saving on the budget on this budget of 150k in 2009/10. for advice and support for schools on school meals, including nutrition advice. To note the current budget position and the forecast issues that will need to be addressed in formulating the budget for 2009/2010. FF/09/7 Early Years Funding The Forum received a paper from the Director of Children s Services informing members of changes to Early Funding and potential funding issues that may arise. These changes to the way Early Years is funded will affect primary schools with nursery classes and nursery schools, not just in terms of the introduction of a new Early Years formula and pupil count but also in terms of the mainstream formula and other grants received. By April 2010, local authorities are required to implement a common Early Years Free Entitlement funding formula for both local authority maintained and private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sector providers, which uses a common pupil count method. In addition, the Free Entitlement will be extended to 15 hours, to be delivered flexibly, having regard to the needs of parents and carers. The extension to 15 hours will apply to the 25% most disadvantaged Page 5 of 8

6 children from September Manchester is also taking part in a pilot to extend free entitlement to the most disadvantaged 2 year olds, again from September The Forum noted that a formula was being developed that would take account of relative need between the various types of provider, whilst being affordable. and addressing the Authority s priorities in this area. Feedback from pathfinder authorities indicated that most opted for a basic hourly rate with additions to that rate for local priorities. The formula would need to be finalised by Summer 2009 for consultation with schools in the early Autumn. Members highlighted the potential difficulties in accurately quantifying provision between part and full days, and the vague criteria so far identified for selecting disadvantaged pupils. Members accepted that the changes would present huge challenges to the private and voluntary sector providers but Councillor Newman qualified that this had to be set against the fact that Manchester s overall early years provision was significantly better developed that that of most other UK local authorities To note the report and the work in hand to finalise implementational issues. FF/09/8 Pupil Referral Units The Forum considered a paper by the Director of Children s Services describes the financial implications of the current arrangements for exclude pupils and outlines a strategy for 2009/10. The report indicated that funding for 2008/09 for the three pupil referral units is 2,320,567 including 258,000 for Day 6 provision; in addition there was a budget of 401,194 for Education Otherwise than at School (EOTAS). The current forecast overspend on the combined budgets was 235,575, including some offsetting of spend as a result of vacancies during the year which cannot be assumed at the same level in future years. The Forum recognised that the PRU Service was facing significant budget pressures in 2008/09. Initial plans to reduce service delivery as part of the Education Services redesign had been reviewed in order to give the time to develop a longer term EOTAS Strategy including provision for excluded pupils and also to better understand and plan for the impact of statutory changes. The full impact of the requirement to make full-time provision from Day 6 and the significant increased number of permanently excluded pupils has been under-estimated. The PRU budget now has to cover the cost of the PRUs, including the additional 40 places, as well as the Day 6 provision and the funds are insufficient. Councillor Newman expressed concern that the number of exclusions was increasing, she indicated that this was a clear indicator that preventative strategies were not working effectively and that there was an urgent need for a collaborative approach to secure good outcomes for excluded children. Page 6 of 8

7 The Forum also noted that a recent Ofsted survey of Day 6 provision in Manchester reported that the Local Authority was not currently meeting its statutory responsibility to place all permanently excluded pupils from Day 6. This is being addressed by identifying and purchasing additional capacity but additional funding is required to support this strategy. The Chair also d rw attention to the 400 Manchester children who did not appear on any school roll and for whom the Authority received no financial provision, and he suggested that DCSF needed to urgently identify means of meeting their educational needs. The paper signposted future thinking arising from the planned Local Authority review of Pupil Referral Units as one element of Manchester s Education Otherwise than at School Strategy (EOTAS). The Strategy will be informed by DCSF recommendations and requirements identified in Back on Track Modernising Alternative Provision for Young People, and by the views and experiences of Manchester teachers, headteachers, children and young people. The Forum welcomed the work being done by a representative group of high school headteachers working with officers to develop the Strategy, and that discussion with primary headteachers was taking place in Districts, with primary schools working collaboratively, using resources allocated in 2007/08, to support earlier intervention with vulnerable pupils at risk of fixed term or permanent exclusion. The outcomes of this work will inform the development of the Strategy. To note the report. FF/09/9 Service Level Agreements The Forum noted a report of the Director of Children s Services The purpose of the paper is to provide schools and academies with information on Manchester City Council SLAs, including a copy of the Service Level Agreement directory, which details the services, including those offered by Children s Services Traded Services, in 2009/10. The SLA Directory offered schools and academies a single reference document with summaries of services and contact points for advice on the services available for purchase from Manchester City Council. The Directory provided a single framework within which services can be offered from all Manchester City Council Departments. It contained significant changes to information given in last year s directory as since the launch of Children s Services Traded Services in April 2008 it is clear that headteachers generally prefer not to enter into lengthy SLA agreements for services delivered by Traded Services. The preference for Traded Services has been for spot purchases for a shorter period rather than use standard annual SLA agreements. Page 7 of 8

8 To note the revised arrangements. Page 8 of 8